This study was undertaken to measure the impact of the
standard, treatment, and sanction dockets, which comprise the Superior
Court Drug Intervention Program (SCDIP), on drug-involved defendants
in Washington, DC, while examining defendants' continued drug use and
substance abuse, criminal activity, and social and economic
functioning. Features common to all three dockets of the SCDIP program
included early intervention, frequent drug testing, and judicial
involvement in monitoring drug test results, as well as the monitoring
of each defendant's progress. Data for this study were collected from
four sources for defendants arrested on drug felony charges between
September 1, 1994, and January 31, 1996, who had been randomly
assigned to one of three drug dockets (sanction, treatment, or
standard) as part of the SCDIP program. First, data were collected
from the Pretrial Services Agency, which provided monthly updated drug
testing records, case records, and various other administrative
records for all defendants assigned to any of the three
dockets. Second, data regarding prior convictions and sentencing
information were collected from computer files maintained by the
Washington, DC, Superior Court. Third, arrest data were taken from the
Uniform Crime Reporting Program. Lastly, data on self-reported drug
use, criminal and personal activities, and opinions about the program
were collected from interviews conducted with defendants one year
after their sentencing. Variables collected from administrative
records included drug test results, eligibility date for the
defendant, date the defendant started treatment, number of compliance
hearings, prior conviction, arrest, and sentencing information, and
program entry date. Survey questions asked of each respondent fell
into one of seven categories: (1) Individual characteristics, such as
gender, age, and marital status. (2) Current offenses, including
whether the respondent was sentenced to probation, prison, jail, or
another correctional facility for any offense and the length of
sentencing, special conditions or restrictions of that sentence (e.g.,
electronic monitoring, mandatory drug testing, educational programs,
or psychological counseling), whether any of the sentence was reduced
by credit, and whether the respondent was released on bail bond or to
the custody of another person. (3) Current supervision, specifically,
whether the respondent was currently on probation, the number and type
of contacts made with probation officers, issues discussed during the
meeting, any new offenses or convictions since being on probation,
outcome of any hearings, and reasons for returning back to prison,
jail, or another correctional facility. (4) Criminal history, such as
the number of previous arrests, age at first arrest, sentencing type,
whether the respondent was a juvenile, a youthful offender, or an
adult when the crime was committed, and whether any time was served
for each of the following crimes: drug trafficking, drug possession,
driving while intoxicated, weapons violations, robbery, sexual
assault/rape, murder, other violent offenses, burglary, larceny/auto
theft, fraud, property offenses, public order offenses, and
probation/parole violations. (5) Socioeconomic characteristics, such
as whether the respondent had a job or business, worked part- or
full-time, type of job or business, yearly income, whether the
respondent was looking for work, the reasons why the respondent was
not looking for work, whether the respondent was living in a house,
apartment, trailer, hotel, shelter, or other type of housing, whether
the respondent contributed money toward rent or mortgage, number of
times moved, if anyone was living with the respondent, the number and
ages of any children (including step or adopted), whether child
support was being paid by the respondent, who the respondent lived
with when growing up, the number of siblings the respondent had,
whether any of the respondent's parents spent any time in jail or
prison, and whether the respondent was ever physically or sexually
abused. (6) Alcohol and drug use and treatment, specifically, the type
of drug used (marijuana, crack cocaine, other cocaine, heroin, PCP,
and LSD), whether alcohol was consumed, the amount of each that was
typically used/consumed, and whether any rehabilitation programs were
attended. (7) Other services, programs, and probation conditions, such
as whether any services were received for emotional or mental health
problems, if any medications were prescribed, and whether the
respondent was required to participate in a mental health services
program, vocational training program, educational program, or
community service program.

This study was undertaken to measure the impact of the
standard, treatment, and sanction dockets, which comprise the Superior
Court Drug Intervention Program (SCDIP), on drug-involved defendants
in Washington, DC, while examining defendants' continued drug use and
substance abuse, criminal activity, and social and economic
functioning. Features common to all three dockets of the SCDIP program
included early intervention, frequent drug testing, and judicial
involvement in monitoring drug test results, as well as the monitoring
of each defendant's progress. Data for this study were collected from
four sources for defendants arrested on drug felony charges between
September 1, 1994, and January 31, 1996, who had been randomly
assigned to one of three drug dockets (sanction, treatment, or
standard) as part of the SCDIP program. First, data were collected
from the Pretrial Services Agency, which provided monthly updated drug
testing records, case records, and various other administrative
records for all defendants assigned to any of the three
dockets. Second, data regarding prior convictions and sentencing
information were collected from computer files maintained by the
Washington, DC, Superior Court. Third, arrest data were taken from the
Uniform Crime Reporting Program. Lastly, data on self-reported drug
use, criminal and personal activities, and opinions about the program
were collected from interviews conducted with defendants one year
after their sentencing. Variables collected from administrative
records included drug test results, eligibility date for the
defendant, date the defendant started treatment, number of compliance
hearings, prior conviction, arrest, and sentencing information, and
program entry date. Survey questions asked of each respondent fell
into one of seven categories: (1) Individual characteristics, such as
gender, age, and marital status. (2) Current offenses, including
whether the respondent was sentenced to probation, prison, jail, or
another correctional facility for any offense and the length of
sentencing, special conditions or restrictions of that sentence (e.g.,
electronic monitoring, mandatory drug testing, educational programs,
or psychological counseling), whether any of the sentence was reduced
by credit, and whether the respondent was released on bail bond or to
the custody of another person. (3) Current supervision, specifically,
whether the respondent was currently on probation, the number and type
of contacts made with probation officers, issues discussed during the
meeting, any new offenses or convictions since being on probation,
outcome of any hearings, and reasons for returning back to prison,
jail, or another correctional facility. (4) Criminal history, such as
the number of previous arrests, age at first arrest, sentencing type,
whether the respondent was a juvenile, a youthful offender, or an
adult when the crime was committed, and whether any time was served
for each of the following crimes: drug trafficking, drug possession,
driving while intoxicated, weapons violations, robbery, sexual
assault/rape, murder, other violent offenses, burglary, larceny/auto
theft, fraud, property offenses, public order offenses, and
probation/parole violations. (5) Socioeconomic characteristics, such
as whether the respondent had a job or business, worked part- or
full-time, type of job or business, yearly income, whether the
respondent was looking for work, the reasons why the respondent was
not looking for work, whether the respondent was living in a house,
apartment, trailer, hotel, shelter, or other type of housing, whether
the respondent contributed money toward rent or mortgage, number of
times moved, if anyone was living with the respondent, the number and
ages of any children (including step or adopted), whether child
support was being paid by the respondent, who the respondent lived
with when growing up, the number of siblings the respondent had,
whether any of the respondent's parents spent any time in jail or
prison, and whether the respondent was ever physically or sexually
abused. (6) Alcohol and drug use and treatment, specifically, the type
of drug used (marijuana, crack cocaine, other cocaine, heroin, PCP,
and LSD), whether alcohol was consumed, the amount of each that was
typically used/consumed, and whether any rehabilitation programs were
attended. (7) Other services, programs, and probation conditions, such
as whether any services were received for emotional or mental health
problems, if any medications were prescribed, and whether the
respondent was required to participate in a mental health services
program, vocational training program, educational program, or
community service program.

Access Notes

The public-use data files in this collection are available for access by the general public.
Access does not require affiliation with an ICPSR member institution.

Universe:
Defendants arrested on felony drug charges between
September 1, 1994, and January 31, 1996, and sentenced prior to June
30, 1997, who had been randomly assigned to one of three drug dockets
in the Washington, DC, Superior Court Drug Intervention Program.

Data Type(s):
administrative records data, and survey data

Data Collection Notes:

The user guide, codebook, and data collection
instrument are provided by ICPSR as a Portable Document Format (PDF)
file. The PDF file format was developed by Adobe Systems Incorporated
and can be accessed using PDF reader software, such as the Adobe
Acrobat Reader. Information on how to obtain a copy of the Acrobat
Reader is provided through the ICPSR Web site.

Methodology

Study Purpose:
In 1993, the Washington, DC, Superior Court
embarked on an experiment, known as the Superior Court Drug
Intervention Program (SCDIP), which was based on a comparison of the
drug use and criminal activity of drug felony defendants randomly
assigned to one of three dockets (standard, treatment, or
sanction). The three dockets were established in 1992 for the purpose
of expediting the handling of drug cases. This study was undertaken to
measure the impact of the standard, treatment, and sanction dockets on
drug-involved defendants in Washington, DC, while examining
defendants' continued drug use, criminal activity, and social and
economic functioning. Features common to all three dockets of the
SCDIP program included early intervention, frequent drug testing, and
judicial involvement in monitoring drug test results, as well as the
monitoring of each defendant's progress. Each docket offered different
services as follows: (1) The standard docket continued to handle drug
cases in a routine manner, which included twice-weekly drug tests and
judicial monitoring of the results. Current computerized drug test
information was available at the judge's bench at each hearing. The
standard docket judges typically encouraged defendants who tested
positive or missed tests to seek treatment but did not provide case
management staff to assist them and did not levy sanctions for test
failures. (2) The treatment docket provided a comprehensive day
treatment program designed to provide the skills, self-esteem, and
community resources necessary to help drug-dependent individuals leave
the drug-using criminal life. The treatment docket included more
frequent drug testing -- daily or three times per week. Penalties
were imposed by the treatment staff for nonattendance, tardiness, and
behavior problems in treatment, but not for positive drug tests, which
were handled by judges. Judicial admonishment and program termination
were used to respond to persistent, serious problems. Participants
were expected to move through sequential treatment stages, which
consisted of an orientation phase and a five-level intensive treatment
phase. Progression through the program was contingent upon the
participant's progress toward the treatment objectives outlined in the
treatment plan, which included academic functioning, participation,
and social adjustment. (3) The sanction docket offered eligible
defendants (who successfully completed the program) the opportunity
for an increased chance of receiving probation rather than
incarceration at sentencing. This docket offered drug-involved
defendants a program that required twice weekly drug testing,
referrals to community-based treatment, and graduated sanctions for
drug test failures. Failure to appear and test drug free twice each
week resulted in the swift and certain applications of clearly defined
penalties at compliance hearings. Penalties increased in severity with
each drug test failure. Because the court wanted the consequences of a
bad test outcome clearly understood by the defendants and all
concerned, the type of penalty was the same for a missed test,
tampered sample, or positive test.

Study Design:
Data for this study were collected from four
sources for defendants arrested on drug felony charges between
September 1, 1994, and January 31, 1996, who had been randomly
assigned to one of three drug dockets (sanction, treatment, or
standard) as part of the Washington, DC, Superior Court Drug
Program. First, data were collected from the Pretrial Services Agency,
which provided monthly updated drug testing records, case records, and
various other administrative records for all defendants assigned to
any of the three dockets. Second, data regarding prior convictions and
sentencing information were collected from computer files maintained
by the Washington, DC, Superior Court. Third, arrest data were taken
from the Uniform Crime Reporting Program. Lastly, data on
self-reported drug use, criminal and personal activities, and opinions
about the program were collected from interviews conducted with
defendants one year after their sentencing. During the interview
period (January 1996-January 1998), respondents were identified
through court records that were sent to the Gallup Organization on a
monthly basis. Researchers gathered information about the location of
a respondent from the District of Columbia Court computer
system. Prior to attempting to schedule an interview, interviewers
sent advance letters to respondents describing the project and
explaining its purpose and sponsor. Advance letters returned as
undeliverable triggered a trace on the respondent, which led to
special locating efforts achieved with help from probation
officers. Interviews for cases identified as jail cases were scheduled
through the DC court system. The questionnaire that was used closely
followed the instrument that the Bureau of Justice Statistics used for
the National Survey of Probationers. Specially trained staff working
for Gallup conducted interviews in jailhouses, probation offices, or
at the homes of defendants for approximately one hour. Gallup project
staff and interviewers were blind to the respondents' docket
assignments. At the time of each interview, respondents were given a
letter explaining the purpose of the survey, and assuring them that
their participation was voluntary and that any input would be
confidential and anonymous. Each respondent was given 20 dollars at
the time of the interview in exchange for their participation.

Data Source:

official records, Uniform Crime Reporting Program
data, and personal interviews

Description of Variables:
Variables collected from administrative records
included drug test results, eligibility date for the defendant, date
the defendant started treatment, number of compliance hearings, prior
conviction, arrest, and sentencing information, and program entry
date. Survey questions asked of each respondent fell into one of
seven categories: (1) Individual characteristics, such as gender, age,
and marital status. (2) Current offenses, including whether the
respondent was sentenced to probation, prison, jail, or another
correctional facility for any offense and the length of sentencing,
special conditions or restrictions of that sentence (e.g., electronic
monitoring, mandatory drug testing, educational programs, or
psychological counseling), whether any of the sentence was reduced by
credit, and whether the respondent was released on bail bond or to the
custody of another person. (3) Current supervision, specifically,
whether the respondent was currently on probation, the number and type
of contacts made with probation officers, issues discussed during the
meeting, any new offenses or convictions since being on probation,
outcome of any hearings, and reasons for returning back to prison,
jail, or another correctional facility. (4) Criminal history, such as
the number of previous arrests, age at first arrest, sentencing type,
whether the respondent was a juvenile, a youthful offender, or an
adult when the crime was committed, and whether any time was served
for each of the following crimes: drug trafficking, drug possession,
driving while intoxicated, weapons violations, robbery, sexual
assault/rape, murder, other violent offenses, burglary, larceny/auto
theft, fraud, property offenses, public order offenses, and
probation/parole violations. (5) Socioeconomic characteristics, such
as whether the respondent had a job or business, worked part- or
full-time, type of job or business, yearly income, whether the
respondent was looking for work, the reasons why the respondent was
not looking for work, whether the respondent was living in a house,
apartment, trailer, hotel, shelter, or other type of housing, whether
the respondent contributed money toward rent or mortgage, number of
times moved, if anyone was living with the respondent, the number and
ages of any children (including step or adopted), whether child
support was being paid by the respondent, who the respondent lived
with when growing up, the number of siblings the respondent had,
whether any of the respondent's parents spent any time in jail or
prison, and whether the respondent was ever physically or sexually
abused. (6) Alcohol and drug use and treatment, specifically, the type
of drug used (marijuana, crack cocaine, other cocaine, heroin, PCP,
and LSD), whether alcohol was consumed, the amount of each that was
typically used/consumed, and whether any rehabilitation programs were
attended. (7) Other services, programs, and probation conditions,
such as whether any services were received for emotional or mental
health problems, if any medications were prescribed, and whether the
respondent was required to participate in a mental health services
program, vocational training program, educational program, or
community service program.

Extent of Processing: ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of
disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major
statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to
these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection:

Download Statistics

This website is funded through Inter-agency agreements through the Bureau of
Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention of
the Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Neither the U.S. Department of Justice nor any of its
components operate, control, are responsible for, or necessarily endorse, this website (including, without limitation,
its content, technical infrastructure, and policies, and any services or tools provided).